Paddling a 16-year-old giirl at school: is everyone stupid here?

I just think it's plain ridiculous that it's even allowed anymore no matter what state it is. It doesn't solve anything, it just makes the kids immune to the affects and they still do the things that landed them in that situation in the first place. The school boards won't get far as long as it's being headed by Holier-than-thou men that think only they know what's best.

What a nice acting young lady. Her mother seemed rather rational as well. Even going on to say that she didn't think the person administering the punishment meant to hurt her daughter, just that he was "too big and strong" to be paddling "98 pound girls".

Click to expand...

Actually, he has too much of a penis to be paddling/spanking a curvaceous 16 year old girl whether she weighs 98 pounds or 198 pounds. Yes, the fact that he's a man administering this is a serious problem before the issue of her getting welts from the paddling should ever come up.

Men....are allowed.....to spank teenage girls in Texas as long as it's at school and he's "punishing" her? I don't care if it's a paddle. The dude's giving the teenage cutie a spanking. Once I passed puberty, spanking was only administered in a sexual context with a partner.

In what world are grown men allowed to spank teenage girls? That's completely bizarre and unacceptable.

No, of course it wouldn't have been "more okay" if she weren't as cute. That wasn't my point. My point was that no grown man has any business spanking a teenage girl. The girl in the video is very, very cute so I included the cute in my phrasing.

If my high school principal had paddled my behind he'd have ended up flat on his back unconscious courtesy of my father. I can't fathom that any teenager is paddled, much less a teenage girl by a grown man.

What a nice acting young lady. Her mother seemed rather rational as well. Even going on to say that she didn't think the person administering the punishment meant to hurt her daughter, just that he was "too big and strong" to be paddling "98 pound girls".

The school followed policy and got mom's permission. The school didn't follow policy on the gender appropriate school official to administer punishment. That's the problem here.

What I like about this story is that there was a dispute and both sides seem to be handling it rationally. There was discussion, there was problem solving and there was a resolution.

Isn't that what we, as humans, should be doing?

It seems like everyone here so far has gotten their panties all bunched up over the corporal punishment. Yet you didn't see the young lady freaking out, screaming, yelling, cursing, calling lawyers and such.

She took the punishment like a man! She "cowgirled" up!

For a teeanger today to be that responsible, well...it's refreshing. To see a mother willing that her child be punished and not becoming a screaming, cussing, spitting, freak...that's a miracle all in itself.

(I'm not attempting to ascertain the correctness of the punishment or the reasons for it's being doled out - only that it was refreshing to see a story featuring mothers, teenage girls and a school told without lawyers, guns and money being involved!)

Click to expand...

I don't see this as "rational" at all. A 16 year old teenager was beaten hard enough to leave welts, and the mother seems to be in pretty extreme denial to claim the principal just "didn't mean" to hurt her daughter. It sounds like the kind of rationalization victims of domestic violence use.

If these people are honestly able to just talk through this with "discussion, problem solving, and resolution", what was the purpose of the spanking in the first place? Clearly this girl is capable of learning in a way that doesn't involve physical punishment.

You also praise her for "taking it like a man". Spankings are intended to be demeaning, humiliating, and painful. What real man is going to let someone treat him like that? In the workplace? When he's out with his buddies? At home with his family? They don't even do this in the military... There is no time in life where it is necessary to endure this kind of punishment. Teaching kids to just "accept" this doesn't prepare them for real life.

Word. Taking a "beating like a man" is turning around and defending yourself. Interesting to note that the girl and mother seeming "okay" with the spanking itself seems to be a variation on "battered-wife syndrome."

Now I could reasonable see "a" need to maybe spank a grade-school aged kid. I'm not sure on where the line is drawn on disciplining a child but I'm pretty sure it'd be before middle-school and certainly before freaking-HIGH SCHOOL.

This girl is 16 years old. Legally an adult for many purposes in areas of the country. From my understanding she was given a single swat with a paddle that left her with welts and bruises and the inability to sleep on or otherwise use her behind for more than a day. She was given this swat by an adult man.

In what universe is this even slightly okay?

Again, sure, I could see smacking a grade-school child as for young enough kids with little grasp of discipline that can be the only way to get a message across. For a more mature person and they have to choose between the loss of free-time (something that means something to them) with detention or a swat on the ass, sure'll they'll take the latter as it means nothing.

My parents stopped spanking me when I found the concept and experience more funny than meaningful to change my behavior. That was probably in 4th grade at the latest.

This whole thing is messed up and the more messed up part in the initial aftermath of it the school's reaction was simply to alter the "no cross-gender spankings" thing which seemed to be the only real problem the mother had with it.

And she didn't even have a problem with it because her teenage daughter was spanked by a man because it could have sexual implications for either (or both) party/parties (because, yes, the girl is conventionally cute) but simply because a man is stronger and could do more damage with a single hit than a woman potentially could.

A lot of older teachers say paddling works, and the few long-term studies on spanking (which are difficult to do because not very many people weren't spanked) show long-term benefits. Those were spanked occassionally for misbehavior (at least up to age 6) outperform those who weren't, and are happier and more succesful.

16 is pushing it though. By that age, teachers should be using more devious or drastic punishments to show the students that as they get older, adults are going to quit holding back. Down South the sweat box would be a good one, but pretty much anything used by the Spanish inquisition should work: flogging, thumb-screws, branding.

The latest trend sweeping the school systems is the use of mass starvation for behavior control. The new high-school food guidelines limit lunch to 850 kcalories a day, whereas active teens need 3,000 to 5,000 kcalories per day. Teachers are telling the students to bring more food from home to avoid weakness, lightheadedness, and other effects of starvation.

The school lunch argument is neither here nor there, but needing a 3,000 calorie per day diet doesn't mean to get most of those calories at lunch. Lunch, in fact, is supposed to be the lightest meal of the day. Properly raised kids will get the rest of the calories they need for breakfast or lunch.

Anyway, I've got no disagreement with using "corporal punishment" on grade-school aged kids up to maybe 4th grade. But such punishment on a teenager is meaningless and stupid.

Word. Taking a "beating like a man" is turning around and defending yourself. Interesting to note that the girl and mother seeming "okay" with the spanking itself seems to be a variation on "battered-wife syndrome."

Click to expand...

Again, I agree. The mother's reaction is strangely muted and devoid of the "ewwww" reaction one might expect. My own parents believed in limited spankings of their kids if our behavior was particularly egregious (letting someone copy off us at school wouldn't have qualified) but they'd have never allowed school personnel to strike their children. They'd have administered it themselves--when we were in grade school. Once a kid is past puberty spankings never would have been in the thought process.

The school lunch argument is neither here nor there, but needing a 3,000 calorie per day diet doesn't mean to get most of those calories at lunch. Lunch, in fact, is supposed to be the lightest meal of the day. Properly raised kids will get the rest of the calories they need for breakfast or lunch.

Click to expand...

That would be nice, but breakfast is limited to 600 calories and a lot of kids don't get dinner till late. Many poor kids, for whom the program was set up, rely on school lunches for most of the caloric intake. Schools used to make sure they had more than enough to eat, but not any more, so we'll have growing teens on a 1450 calorie a day diet instead of a 3,000 calorie a day diet. Thus the mass protests (some schools have seen 70% of their school-lunch kids boycott the program).

On the bright side, forced starvation is very effective at switching a person's political affiliation, so I'm glad Reagan or the Bush's didn't pull this one.

Genius. Can't beat teaching kids that violence is an appropriate way to resolve issues. That aside from acclimatising young women to male violence so they'll be more passive about it when their husbands beat shit out of them. That's a woman's place, I assume, in Texas, judging from the Mother's response. Teach her to be a Good (obedient, passive, punchbag) girl.

(Don't know where you're getting the idea teens need up to 5000 kcals a day. The NHS disagrees. Though of course, we are trying to actively prevent teen obesity, rather than encourage it)

I have taught for some time so I understand that a teacher can become frustrated but violence is never an option. It is a difficult job which is precisely why it should be far better paid and why only people with pedagogic skills should be teachers.
I know three people who have had a violent father. They all have at least minor psychological problems (OK, who doesn't) and bear these scars on their soul for the rest of their lives.

I think the gender of the person doing the paddling is really beside the point. If it was a woman doing it, it'd still be wrong and completely inappropriate. A man doing it just makes it more unseemly. But there is no reason at all why a teacher should be paddling a teenager. That's just ridiculous.

I never got any corporal punishment at school--my parents forbade the school from doing it. I got it very occasionally at home.

And now I've read somewhere (sorry, lost the link) that the school has solved the policy violation problem by changing the policy, so that staff members of either gender may now administer corporal punishment to any student. Talk about going backwards.

Click to expand...

For what it's worth, while I don't support corporal punishment in schools, I'm ok with this small fact. The reason there is that one gender was getting disproportionately punished because there weren't enough teachers of the other gender. If it is to be administered, it has to be done even-handedly. Now that's entirely separate from whether it should be administered. I personally think it's counter-productive at best and likely to produce greater problems in the future.

I went to parochial schools from kindergarten through HS. I seem to remember being spanked until the 6'th grade (age 10 to 11). Then of course, a note was sent home detailing your infraction to your parents.
A single swat on the bottom is nothing compared to what the nuns could think up to punish us hellions.

I do agree though, that a 16 year is too old to be spanked and a male shouldn't have been the one to administer said swat.

For what it's worth, half of Europe (including Italy) allow parents to administer corporal punishment, according to that map.

Click to expand...

So does every single US state. I also know how to read maps, thanks.
And I thought we were talking about schools. There's a difference between having the state tell parents how to raise their kids and state representatives (teachers) beating kids themselves.
Not that I agree with either.

Also: Any specific reason for singling out Italy where corporal punishment in schools has been banned since 1928? Sulking because I'm not all that impressed by the US in this case?

In fairness, the school got permission from the mother before spanking the teenager. But the spanking was severe enough the actually wound the young woman, which I think speaks volumes. Even if you rightfully spank a child in discipline, if you leave bruises CPS will be knocking on your door if it's discovered.

For what it's worth, half of Europe (including Italy) allow parents to administer corporal punishment, according to that map.

Click to expand...

So does every single US state. I also know how to read maps, thanks.
And I thought we were talking about schools. There's a difference between having the state tell parents how to raise their kids and state representatives (teachers) beating kids themselves.
Not that I agree with either.

Click to expand...

Well, I don't agree with corporal punishment. I'm just saying that it's allowed in some circumstances in Europe (negating comments from others that, if a parent did it, child protective services would be called). I understood this case to involve the consent of the parent. I don't want to have to get into in loco parentis, which is a whole different can of worms.

Also: Any specific reason for singling out Italy where corporal punishment in schools has been banned since 1928? Sulking because I'm not all that impressed by the US in this case?